DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to claims filed 30 June 2023.
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are not rejected because they do not recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 2, in step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a product that allocates a cloud resource to a node that implements a virtual storage controller providing access to a storage array by user virtual machines. A method is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A, prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in the MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for recitation of generic computer components:
i. “allocating a cloud bare metal node” (a person can mentally allocate resource nodes by simply evaluating resource node and making a judgement of how to assign the resource node (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
ii. “configuring storage devices of the second type of computing node into the common address space” (a person can mentally configured storage devices in a common address space by simply evaluating storage devices and making a judgement that they should be a part of the common address space (MPEP 2106.04(a))).
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
In step 2A, prong 2 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
iii. In claim 1, “A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by a processor cause the processor to perform acts” (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
iv. In claim 1, “maintaining a computing environment having a storage pool formed using a common address space across storage located on multiple computing nodes in the computing environment” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
v. In claim 1, “implementing a first type of computing node in the computing environment having both a virtualization storage controller and a user virtual machine (UVM), wherein the UVM interacts with the virtualization storage controller to access the storage pool” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
vi. In claim 1, “implementing a second type of computing node in the computing environment having the virtualization storage controller but not having any UVMs that interact with the virtualization storage controller to access the storage pool, wherein the second type of computing node is used to expand functionality of the computing environment” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is “directed” to an abstract idea.
In step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined through reanalysis of the following limitations considered in step 2A prong 2, that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
iii. In claim 1, “A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by a processor cause the processor to perform acts” (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
iv. In claim 1, “maintaining a computing environment having a storage pool formed using a common address space across storage located on multiple computing nodes in the computing environment” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
v. In claim 1, “implementing a first type of computing node in the computing environment having both a virtualization storage controller and a user virtual machine (UVM), wherein the UVM interacts with the virtualization storage controller to access the storage pool” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
vi. In claim 1, “implementing a second type of computing node in the computing environment having the virtualization storage controller but not having any UVMs that interact with the virtualization storage controller to access the storage pool, wherein the second type of computing node is used to expand functionality of the computing environment” (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))).
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the additional element “allocating a cloud bare metal node” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally allocate resource nodes by simply evaluating resource node and making a judgement of how to assign the resource node (MPEP 2106.04(a)). Further, the additional limitation of “configuring storage devices of the second type of computing node into the common address space” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally configured storage devices in a common address space by simply evaluating storage devices and making a judgement that they should be a part of the common address space (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Regarding claim 4, the additional element “mapping a set of dependencies to one or more cloud provider facilities” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally map dependencies by simply evaluating the dependencies and making a judgement of which cloud provider facilities should be associated with them (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Regarding claim 5, the additional element “configuring the second type of computing node using a first portion of initialization code that corresponds to the one or more cloud provider facilities” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally configure nodes by simply evaluating the configuration parameters and making a judgement that a particular node should have those parameters (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Regarding claim 6, the additional element “configuring the second type of computing node using a second portion of initialization code that corresponds to an on-premises computing cluster” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally configure nodes by simply evaluating the configuration parameters and making a judgement that a particular node should have those parameters (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Regarding claim 7, the additional element “establishing network communications between infrastructure of a cloud provider and a hybrid cloud configurator module” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 1, it recites a judicial exception (mental process) (a person can mentally establish communications by simply making a judgement that communications may be enabled (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Regarding claim 8, the additional element “the hybrid cloud configurator module carries out a computing node configuration protocol via network communications between the infrastructure of a cloud provider infrastructure and an on- premises computing cluster” does not render the claim patent eligible because under step 2A prong 2, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)), and under step 2B it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 10-16, and 18-24, they comprise limitations similar to 2-8, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ZHANG et al. Pub. No.: US 2024/0086369 A1 (hereafter ZHANG369).
Regarding claim 1, ZHANG369 teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by a processor cause the processor to perform acts ([Claim 16] A non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device causes the at least one processing device to perform the following steps) comprising:
maintaining a computing environment having a storage pool formed using a common address space across storage located on multiple computing nodes in the computing environment ([0026] The host devices 102 in some embodiments illustratively provide compute services such as execution of one or more applications 103 on behalf of each of one or more users associated with respective ones of the host devices. Such applications 103 illustratively generate I/O operations that are processed by the storage arrays 106. The term “input-output” as used herein refers to at least one of input and output. For example, I/O operations may comprise write requests and/or read requests directed to logical addresses of a particular storage array 106. [0028] The exemplary storage array 106-1 (i.e., “storage pool”), as shown in FIG. 1 , comprises a plurality of storage devices 108-1, . . . 108-P (collectively, referred to as storage devices 108) (i.e., storage across multiple storage devices, or “computing nodes”) each storing data utilized by one or more of the applications 103 (i.e., storage array provides “common address space” having logical addresses for multiple applications across multiple host devices to read from/write to) running on one or more of the host devices 102);
implementing a first type of computing node in the computing environment having both a virtualization storage controller and a user virtual machine (UVM) ([0031] At least one of the storage controllers 110 may be implemented as a virtual storage controller…The file system capacity adjustment module 114 may be part of such a virtual storage controller…at least a portion of the functionalities of the file system capacity adjustment module 114 is implemented…on one or more of the host devices 102. [0048] The host devices 102…in the FIG. 1 embodiment are assumed to be implemented using at least one processing platform, with each processing platform comprising one or more processing devices…processing devices in some embodiments are implemented at least in part utilizing virtual resources such as virtual machines (VMs) (i.e., a host device 102 having both a virtual storage controller and a virtual machine executing user applications (thereby representing a “user virtual machine”), as also shown in FIG. 10, represents a “first type of computing node”)), wherein the UVM interacts with the virtualization storage controller to access the storage pool ([0028] The storage array 106-1 also comprises one or more storage controllers 110 that facilitate I/O processing for the storage devices 108 (i.e., user applications executing within user virtual machines interact with the storage controllers to perform read/writes to the storage array 106)); and
implementing a second type of computing node in the computing environment having the virtualization storage controller but not having any UVMs that interact with the virtualization storage controller to access the storage pool ([0031] At least one of the storage controllers 110 may be implemented as a virtual storage controller running on an embedded hypervisor of the storage array 106-1. The file system capacity adjustment module 114 may be part of such a virtual storage controller, or may be implemented separate from the virtual storage controller on such an embedded hypervisor. Various other arrangements are possible, including where at least a portion of the functionalities of the file system capacity adjustment module 114 is implemented external to the storage array 106-1 (e.g., on one or more of the host devices 102, on a separate server, or on a cloud computing infrastructure) (i.e., a virtual storage controller may execute on either a storage array 106 (which hosts no user applications or virtual machines as illustrated in FIG. 1) or in a server or bare cloud infrastructure that is separate from the hosts that comprise the virtual machines)), wherein the second type of computing node is used to expand functionality of the computing environment ([0028] The storage array 106-1 also comprises one or more storage controllers 110 that facilitate I/O processing for the storage devices 108. The storage array 106-1 and its associated storage devices 108 are an example of what is more generally referred to herein as a “storage system.” This storage system in the present embodiment is shared by the host devices 102, and is therefore also referred to herein as a “shared storage system.” (i.e., the storage array 106 provides “expanded” storage on top of what is provided locally at each host)).
Regarding claim 2, ZHANG369 further teaches:
implementing the second type of computing node comprises allocating a cloud bare metal node and configuring storage devices of the second type of computing node into the common address space ([0031] At least one of the storage controllers 110 may be implemented as a virtual storage controller running on an embedded hypervisor of the storage array 106-1. The file system capacity adjustment module 114 may be part of such a virtual storage controller, or may be implemented separate from the virtual storage controller on such an embedded hypervisor. Various other arrangements are possible, including where at least a portion of the functionalities of the file system capacity adjustment module 114 is implemented external to the storage array 106-1 (e.g., on one or more of the host devices 102, on a separate server, or on a cloud computing infrastructure) (i.e., implementing a virtual storage controller on external cloud computing infrastructure (node) represents implementation on a “cloud bare metal node”)).
Regarding claim 3, ZHANG369 further teaches:
implementing the second type of computing node comprises allocating a cloud native node and configuring storage devices of the second type of computing node into the common address space ([0025] The host devices 102 illustratively comprise servers or other types of computers of an enterprise computer system, cloud-based computer system or other arrangement of multiple compute nodes associated with respective users (i.e., cloud-based nodes represent “cloud native” nodes)).
Regarding claim 4, ZHANG369 further teaches:
implementing the second type of computing node comprises mapping a set of dependencies to one or more cloud provider facilities ([0025] The host devices 102 illustratively comprise servers or other types of computers of an enterprise computer system, cloud-based computer system or other arrangement of multiple compute nodes associated with respective users. [0054] Compute and/or storage services may be provided for users under a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) model, an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) model, a Storage-as-a-Service (STaaS) model and/or a Function-as-a-Service (FaaS) model, although it is to be appreciated that numerous other cloud infrastructure arrangements could be used. [0111] Cloud infrastructure as disclosed herein can include cloud-based systems such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud Platform (GCP) and Microsoft Azure. Virtual machines provided in such systems can be used to implement at least portions of a cloud-based prediction-based file system capacity management platform in illustrative embodiments. The cloud-based systems can include object stores such as Amazon S3, GCP Cloud Storage, and Microsoft Azure Blob Storage (i.e., cloud-based hosts “depend” on the infrastructure provided by various provider datacenter facilities)).
Regarding claim 5, ZHANG369 further teaches:
configuring the second type of computing node using a first portion of initialization code that corresponds to the one or more cloud provider facilities ([0112] The cloud infrastructure additionally or alternatively comprises a plurality of containers implemented using container host devices. For example, a given container of cloud infrastructure illustratively comprises a Docker container or other type of Linux Container. The containers may run on virtual machines in a multi-tenant environment, although other arrangements are possible. The containers may be utilized to implement a variety of different types of functionalities within the storage devices. For example, containers can be used to implement respective processing devices providing compute services of a cloud-based system. Again, containers may be used in combination with other virtualization infrastructure such as virtual machines implemented using a hypervisor (i.e., cloud infrastructure nodes used to implement virtual storage controllers in either the first or second type of computing node use docker initialization code running of virtual machine initialization code to provide the controller, and which “corresponds” to the facilities that provide the cloud infrastructure nodes)).
Regarding claims 9-14, and 17-21, they comprise limitations similar to 1-5, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-8, 14-16, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG369, as applied to claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21 above, and in further view of ZHANG et al. Pub. No.: US 2016/0154630 A1 (hereafter ZHANG630).
Regarding claim 6, while ZHANG369 executes applications on computing nodes, it does not explicitly teach:
configuring the second type of computing node using a second portion of initialization code that corresponds to an on-premises computing cluster.
However, in analogous art that similarly executes applications on computing nodes, ZHANG630 teaches:
configuring the second type of computing node using a second portion of initialization code that corresponds to an on-premises computing cluster ([0017] The cloud includes an application server 150. The application server is configured to host and process cloud applications (Apps) 160. The cloud Apps, for example, are mobile Apps which are run on mobile devices. In one implementation, the application server 150 includes hybrid Apps. Hybrid Apps, for example, are hosted on the cloud but utilizes local resources of a local device on which they run. Other types of application may also be included in the application server. The cloud may also include a resource server (not shown). The resource server, for example, is configured to host data or other resources used by the cloud applications. Such hosting and processing may be considered as cloud services provided by the cloud. Various types of cloud services may be provided. The cloud services may be provided in a public, private or hybrid network (i.e., hybrid application server 150 executing a hybrid application is initialized and configured to use one or more cloud resources (see hosted in the cloud) as well as utilizing local, “on-premises” resources)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined ZHANG630’s teaching of executing hybrid apps on application servers having access to cloud resources and local on-premises resources, with ZHANG369’s teaching of executing a virtual storage controller application on a node separate from user virtual machines, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that executes a virtual storage controller application, as in ZHANG369, as a hybrid application having access to both cloud and on-premises resources, as in ZHANG630. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination so that a storage controller application can utilize a hybrid cloud node to more reliably execute applications on more robust resources provided.
Regarding claim 7, while ZHANG369 executes applications on computing nodes, it does not explicitly teach:
establishing network communications between infrastructure of a cloud provider and a hybrid cloud configurator module.
However, in analogous art that similarly executes applications on computing nodes, ZHANG630
establishing network communications between infrastructure of a cloud provider and a hybrid cloud configurator module ([0017] The cloud includes an application server 150. The application server is configured to host and process cloud applications (Apps) 160. The cloud Apps, for example, are mobile Apps which are run on mobile devices. In one implementation, the application server 150 includes hybrid Apps. Hybrid Apps, for example, are hosted on the cloud but utilizes local resources of a local device on which they run. Other types of application may also be included in the application server. The cloud may also include a resource server (not shown). The resource server, for example, is configured to host data or other resources used by the cloud applications. Such hosting and processing may be considered as cloud services provided by the cloud. Various types of cloud services may be provided. The cloud services may be provided in a public, private or hybrid network. [0024] The local environment includes a companion App 138. The companion App is a native App which runs in the local environment. In one implementation, the companion App is a container App. The container App is configured to provide an environment in which an App runs. For example, a hybrid App on the cloud runs in the companion App. In one implementation, the companion App includes plugins for local resources. For example, the companion App includes Cordova plugins. Other types of plugins may also be useful. The plugins provide local resources to the hybrid App when running within the container App (i.e., native companion app represents a hybrid cloud configurator module because it facilitates hybrid application execution on both local resources and cloud provider resources)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined ZHANG630’s teaching of a companion app communicating with cloud provider resources to facilitate execution of hybrid cloud applications, with ZHANG369’s teaching of executing a virtual storage controller application on a node separate from user virtual machines, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that executes a virtual storage controller application, as in ZHANG369, as a hybrid application having access to both cloud and on-premises resources facilitated by a companion app, as in ZHANG630. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination so that a storage controller application can utilize a hybrid cloud node to more reliably execute applications on more robust resources provided.
Regarding claim 8, ZHANG630 further teaches:
the hybrid cloud configurator module carries out a computing node configuration protocol via network communications between the infrastructure of a cloud provider infrastructure and an on- premises computing cluster ([0017] The cloud includes an application server 150. The application server is configured to host and process cloud applications (Apps) 160. The cloud Apps, for example, are mobile Apps which are run on mobile devices. In one implementation, the application server 150 includes hybrid Apps. Hybrid Apps, for example, are hosted on the cloud but utilizes local resources of a local device on which they run. Other types of application may also be included in the application server. The cloud may also include a resource server (not shown). The resource server, for example, is configured to host data or other resources used by the cloud applications. Such hosting and processing may be considered as cloud services provided by the cloud. Various types of cloud services may be provided. The cloud services may be provided in a public, private or hybrid network. [0024] The local environment includes a companion App 138. The companion App is a native App which runs in the local environment. In one implementation, the companion App is a container App. The container App is configured to provide an environment in which an App runs. For example, a hybrid App on the cloud runs in the companion App. In one implementation, the companion App includes plugins for local resources. For example, the companion App includes Cordova plugins. Other types of plugins may also be useful. The plugins provide local resources to the hybrid App when running within the container App (i.e., companion app configures the hybrid application server to communicate with cloud resources and local resource to facilitate execution of a hybrid application)).
Regarding claims 14-16, and 22-24, they comprise limitations similar to claims 6-8, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W AYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6420. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL W AYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195